706
THE HAWKESBURY RIVER FLOODS
OF 1801, 1806 AND 1809
Their Effect on the Economy of the Colony of
New South Wales
(AU Rights Reserved)
[By J. C. H. GILL, B.A., LL.B., F.R.Hist.S.Q.]
(Read at a Meeting of the Society on 26 June 1969)
Like so many of the topics that present themselves out of
the early history of our nation, this particular one has
presented considerable difficulties in preparation; not on
account of paucity of material, but rather the reverse. The
period in question is almost embarrassingly weU documented
in relation to the preparation of a paper of this size.
In my paper on the "Macquarie Towns" in the Hawkesbury
VaUey which I delivered four years ago, I covered the
desperate need for suitable agricultural land which led to
search and discovery by Phillip of the rich upper Hawkesbury Valley on 6 and 7 July 1789. Almost contemporaneously. Captain Tench, setting out from Rose Hill on 26 June
1789, after two days' travel found a river "as broad as
the Thames at Putney and apparently of great depth, the
current running slowly in a northerly direction." The river
was named Nepean by Phillip, after the then Under Secretary
of State in the Home Department.
In May 1791 Tench and Lieutenant Dawes found that
the Nepean and the Hawkesbury are, in fact, the one river,
the former being but the upper course of the latter.
Hunter, who had accompanied Phillip, in July 1789, and
Tench, both noted that their respective discoveries were
evidently subject to severe ffooding. Hunter spoke of debris
lodged in trees thirty to forty feet above the common level
of the river. Tench saw simUar traces of flooding at least
forty-five feet above the ordinary level of the Nepean.
Although Phillip regarded the new discovery as being
suitable for settlement provided the proper people could
be found to conduct it. Tench had reservations.
707
GOVERNOR PHILLIP
GRANTS OF LAND IN 1794
No settlement in the Hawkesbury VaUey seems to have
taken place untU 1794, when Lieutenant-Governor Grose
made grants of land on the banks of the Hawkesbury to
twenty-six settlers "who seemed very much pleased with
their farms. They described the soU as particularly rich
and they informed me whatever they have planted has grown
in the greatest luxuriance."
On 31 August 1794, Grose further reported that the
number of settlers on the banks of the Hawkesbury had
grown to seventy, that they were doing weU, and he had
caused a good road to be made from Sydney to the Hawkesbury settlement.
However, settlement at the Hawkesbury and elsewhere
was largely at the expense of the public farms which PhUlip
had estabUshed. As a result of complete neglect by Grose,
the public farms at Toongabbie and elsewhere were aUowed
to faU into ruin and decay. A system of private farming
by officers, soldiers and some ex-convicts was substituted.
708
PEASANTRY SCHEME DESTROYED
C. Hartley Grattan, citing Brian Fitzpatrick, says the
English Government had evolved an economic plan for
Australia which was put into operation by PhUlip. Briefly,
it envisaged the strong establishment of a smaU-holding
peasantry in the country, the bulk of the peasants in any
future then visible to be time-expired and emancipated
convicts. This scheme, which may or may not have been
wise, was destroyed after Phillip's departure from the colony
by the military officers. During the years that elapsed between PhUlip's saUing for England in December 1792 and
Hunter's arrival in September 1795, when the colony was
under the full control of the New South Wales Corps, the
officers brought their plan into full operation. Briefly, it
was a trading monopoly which was combined with land
holding on an extensive scale and the ruthless exploitation
of convict labour. Rum became the established medium of
exchange, and the monopolists made huge profits. Since
g5.-Tj?v;w^.j^,,ri,,
.
GOVERNOR HUNTER
709
the officers held in their hands the military power, as well
as such minimum civU power as had been developed and
the Courts, the addition of supreme economic power made
them masters of the community. Then: programme was
retrogressive, not progressive.
Thus, the system of private farming instituted under Grose
and continued by Paterson gave extraordinary advantages
to the private farmers in general and the officers and soldiers
in particular. Each of the officers who had farms, had
granted to them the labour of ten (later thurteen) convicts
and lesser numbers for soldiers and other settlers. No payment was required for this labour and it continued to be
victualled out of the Government Store. The Government
then purchased at high prices the crops grown, and then
distributed them to the other inhabitants who were victualled
from the Government Stores.
RUM TRADE BEGINS
Phillip departed on 11 December 1792. Within a fortnight the rum trade began. Grose, using the specious excuse
that the master of the American ship Hope would not
sell his cargo of provisions unless he could also sell his
cargo of spirits, bought the whole cargo. The spirits were
then issued to the soldiers and the amount of the purchase
stopped out of their pay. The editor of the Historical
Records of New South Wales comments: "This may be
said to be the starting point of the system of liquor traffic
which proved so fatal to the morals of the people."
The Rev. Richard Johnson, writing to a friend in 1794
remarked, with some bitterness:
"Many of our officers have tumed merchants, shopkeepers and wholesale and retail traders in spirituous
liquors. A convict can go and purchase a Bottle, a Pint
of Rum from an officer and gentleman. Some, not quite
so open, employ their wash women or others in this
way — and in this way many are making their fortunes —
spkits, or what shall I caU it, a mixture of — or adulterated
with water, little better than the sailor's grog sold for
forty shiUings a gallon."
The careful and industrious amongst the small-holder
settlers could make a living above a subsistence level, but
many had drunk their crops even before they had ripened.
BARE SUBSISTENCE LEVEL
From 1788 on, the colony had lived on the whole at a
bare subsistence level. On more than one occasion the
710
arrival of Government store ships, or even an individual
private venture, American or British, had saved the inhabitants from utter starvation. The expense to the Government
had been great; from 27 September 1791 to 31 August 1796
provisions for the settlement cost the Government
£101,289/5/lf.
Money, in the form of specie, was almost non-existent
in the colony and had been so from its very commencement.
PhUlip had sought to have a quantity of coined money sent
out to him, but without success. This chronic shortage of
coin was progressively aggravated by the visits of trading
ships. For domestic convenience, the inhabitants circulated
promissory notes amongst themselves as a makeshift form
of currency. These notes, which often carried a nominal
value in terms of grain, were of no use whatever when
negotiating with visiting ships' captains.
PURCHASE OF CARGOES
The worst effects were felt in relation to the purchase
of cargoes. On the arrival of a vessel, the civU and mUitary
officers would enter into an engagement with each other
not to give more than a certain sum for every article. As
the officers were paid in negotiable Treasury bUls, or could
draw on London for credit, they had command of the
colony's purchasing power. If the captain of any visiting
ship decided to sell in New South Wales, he had no alternative but to accept their offer. The officers alone could issue
Treasury bUls for any sum from a shUling to £100 and
seldom dealt in specie.
With these biUs they could purchase a cargo. The captain
then would return the biUs to the Commissary, who made
each issuer pay the nominated amount into his hands and
then issued to the ship's captain or trader a biU drawn on
the Treasury (at ninety days' sight), which alone was negotiable at all other British settlements. Thus freed of the
competition on the supplier, the officers became the retaUers
of all necessities. During the very early years of the colony's
establishment, a steady 500 per cent profit was not unknown.
MONOPOLISTS "BROKE" TWO GOVERNORS
Once established, the monopolists vigorously defended
thek methods of exploitation. As Grattan says, they "broke"
two Governors, Hunter and King, with an entire lack of
scruple, and set a pattern for operations against any successor. The successor of King was, of course, WiUiam
711
Bligh. He had his orders to break up the monopoly and
return the small-holding peasant farmers to the place in
the community originally planned for them. He set about
executing his orders and naturally fell foul of the monopolists.
In H. V. Evatt's view, the monopolists did not stick at
treason to retain their power.
It seems necessary at this stage to refer to the egregious
John Macarthur. Grattan says that aU critical historians
consider that Macarthur was "the brains" of the monopoly
system, although he was far from being the sole initiator,
beneficiary or protagonist. Unfortunately for the clarity of
the story, Macarthur was also the outstanding — though
here again not the sole — proponent of a third economic
programme, which subsequently achieved success. The
reference is, of course, to the establishment of the wool
industry and the success of this endeavour has blinded
many writers to Macarthur's true position in the affairs and
economic state of the colony over the years from 1790 to
the culminating point in 1808 when the head-on coUision
with Bligh occurred.
SELF-ENRICHMENT
Like many of the figures in history who are identified
with the beginnings of an industry which has subsequently
proved a boon to mankind, Macarthur shows no evidence
of having been bent on anything else than self-enrichment
and, when necessary, defending property and profits, present
and future. He did not scruple to support retrogressive —
even sabotaging — policies if they coincided with his fundamental aspiration, which was to become as rich as possible
as quickly as possible. However, today we know he was
on the side of history, whUe the policy of the English
Government sought to be executed through the early Governors from PhUlip to BUgh, i.e., the encouragement
of smaU-holding farmers, was doomed to faUure, viewed
as a means of developing Australia on an extensive scale.
Australian farming was not to get on its feet for many
decades to come, pending the entry into its purview of
such things as railways, dry farming, plant experiments,
refrigeration and fast steamships. Neither the Governors
nor Macarthur knew anything of this, and to impute such
wisdom to Macarthur because of the sheep business is to
miswrite history.
Macarthur was an outstanding villain, but he was no
more than a primus inter pares. It was a pecuUarity of the
New South Wales Corps that it was not enlisted as a
712
fighting unit, and its members were content with mere
garrison or police service at a remote comer of the world
when the relationship of England to the future map of
Europe was being decided elsewhere, and by force of arms.
"LIKE THE WRATH OF ACHILLES . . ."
John Dunmore Lang had some justification for stating
that the New South Wales Corps "possessed oiUy in a very
limited degree, that honourable high-mindedness which
should ever constitute the proud distinction of the British
officer," and for his denunciation of the officers of the
Corps for
"sullying their hands with the sUme of colonial poUution,
and banded together, on every suitable occasion, to
maintain, by violence or injustice, what they obtained
by the sacrifice of honour . . . the New South Wales
Corps was, both in a moral and political sense, the most
ill-advised and unfortunate measure that the British Government could possibly have adopted towards their infant
settlement on the coast of New HoUand; and . . . Uke
the wrath of Achilles to the Greeks, it entailed ten
thousand sorrows on the colony of New South Wales."
By 15 June 1795, Paterson reported that "the number
of settlers on the banks of the Hawkesbury, with their
families, amounts to upwards of 400 persons, and their
grounds extend nearly thirty mUes along the banks on both
sides of the river."
The Hawkesbury Valley farms made the first major contribution towards the colony becoming a self-supporting
entity; but only after suffering the vicissitudes with which
1 shall be dealing.
"SEEDS OF THOSE VEXATIONS"
Hunter, who arrived in Sydney on 7 September 1795,
reported that he had not long entered upon the duties of
his office
"before 1 was awakened from that dream of comfort and
satisfaction in the prospect of which I had so vainly
indulged. The seeds of those vexations which had so
disappointed me had been sown for a considerable time,
and being rather of a prolific nature amongst such people
had gained so much in strength that it will require immense
labour to grub them up by the root."
Earlier he had said, "When I arrived in the country I
saw only the fair side of everything, and wrote from what
1 saw."
713
On 28 April 1796 he had even faUen into the trap of
advocating that more than two male convicts be aUowed
to each settler (including the officers), as the officers raised
more than half the product of the last harvest. As the
labour quota was already in excess of two convicts per
settler, he feared the withdrawal of the excess could lead
to less corn planting, with a consequent price rise on
account of scarcity in the foUowing year. But by 12 November 1796 he was informing the Duke of Portland that on
his arrival in Sydney he had found that he could scarcely
call together twenty convicts for public purposes, as so
many had been taken as assigned servants or even aUowed
to settle and possess property.
"INTENTIONAL EMBARRASSMENT"
Hunter considered that this had very much the appearance
of an intentional embarrassment. Collins says that in
October 1796, Hunter had compeUed 100 convict settlers
to return to servitude.
Hunter had already reported that at the Hawkesbury
alone the following public buildings were sorely needed:
A large granary for the reception of wheat and maize,
the foundations of which were already being laid.
A large and strong storehouse, the present one being
too slight to be secure.
A barrack for the mUitary.
A wind or water mill for the convenience of the
district.
A strong prison.
A smaU hospital, as the nearest to the district is twenty
miles distant.
He had also made a survey of the state of the area:
No. of
District
Settlers
Richmond Hill and N. side of
River
1793-5
46
South side of River
1794-5
42
South Creek
1794-5
30
Cultivation
Pigs
Fowls
Debts ot
Settlers
370 acres
126
1,200
£935
406 acres
225
2,004
£1,850
223 acres
122
552
£1,016
Summing up. Hunter said:
"It will appear by this statement that the settlers on
the Hawkesbury are more in debt than in any other
district. . . . The ground of their farms is of a superior
quality, although those which lay low are sometimes inundated. The debts have been enquired into as a means
of showing the idleness or industry within the different
districts. Debts in the main are due to a disposition to
714
indulge in drunkenness; it has been known that the
produce of the labour for a whole year has been thrown
away for a few gallons of very bad spirit."
Of the 601 men, women and children in the Hawkesbury
settiement as shown by a return of 31 August 1796, only
147 were not victuaUed from the Public Store. Of the
454 who were victualled, 286 (men) were on the fuU ration,
98 (women) on two-thirds ration, 43 (children over two
years) on half-ration, and 27 (chUdren under two) on
one-quarter ration.
"FAR FROM SELF-SUPPORTING"
The colony in general, and the Hawkesbury District in
particular, were far from being self-supporting, and the
stocks of basic foodstuffs, with flour altogether out, were
hardly such as to inspire confidence.
However, in August 1796, the British Government had
despatched shipping with enough animal food (meat) to
constitute twelve months' supply for the colony.
Nevertheless, it is not to be wondered at that the Governors, over and above provisions sent out from England, had
had to spend in purchases from the Cape and India, upwards
of £20,000 per annum on the average. The decay of the
Government farms during the Grose and Paterson regimes
was highlighted by the fact that on account of the labour
shortage for public works the Government land had to be
left unemployed in 1796; thus nearly one-third of the land
available for cultivation in the colony, at that time, could
not be used.
During the remainder of 1796 and in 1797, Hunter continued in his efforts to build up the Government work force,
but was continually frustrated by the vested interests who
were concerned with the retention of their free labour. By
10 June 1797 he had managed to assemble a gang of
about 250 of the convicts for public labour of various kinds;
but
"the recall of such a number to public labour and the
consequence of that loss of labour to private persons has
occasioned some ferment. Those who had lost them are
displeased."
Some convicts fled to the bush to avoid public labour,
whilst others were sheltered by the settlers.
General musters instituted by Hunter had largely controlled the practice of persons drawing rations from more
than the one public store, and the institution of what later
715
came to be known as the ticket-of-leave system brought
some measure of control over the convicts; no settler could
employ a convict unless he could produce his ticket-of-leave.
"IGNORED OR EVADED"
With the trade in spirits, his Govemment and General
Orders banning their import without his permission were
either ignored or evaded, and large quantities of sphits
continued to enter the colony, with the dire effects on its
economy already noted. In desperation, he requested the
Duke of Portland, on 6 July 1797, to insist that a clause
be inserted in the charter of aU ships bound for the colony
which would prevent such occurrences. The Secretary of
State acceded to this on 10 April 1799, but of course. Hunter
did not receive this despatch untU months later.
In addition to shortages of foodstuffs, the lack of clothing
and tools was an embarrassment; they even lacked the iron
and steel bars and plate from which tools could be made.
With the effluxion of time, convicts' sentences expired
and these men, with other free labour that had immigrated
to the colony, raised difficulties in regard to the wages to be
paid. On 10 March 1797, Hunter issued a Government
and General Order fixing wage rates, but although there
was a prohibition on overpayment, the vested interests were
again enabled to outbid the small settler in the labour market.
MONOPOLY IN PURCHASE
In June 1798 occurred the officers' most remarkable
effort to maintain their monopoly. They persuaded Hunter
to issue a General Order forbidding the boarding of newlyarrived ships by any person untU the ships had been secured
in Sydney Cove. Immediately this order came into force
the whole of the officers and some of the principal residents
entered into an agreement not to compete against each
other in the purchase of cargoes, with dire penalties,
including ostracism, for anyone who breached the agreement. The parties to the agreement thus obtained coUectively
a complete monopoly in the purchase of imported goods.
On 10 June 1789 occurred another event of some import.
Robert Campbell, of Campbell, Clarke and Co., of Calcutta,
merchants, arrived in Sydney. This tough Scotsman was
to play a large part in the establishment of commercial free
enterprise in Australia. His command of capital, his perseverance and adaptability, aUied with his skill at unlocking
716
the resources of the colony, were a factor that helped to
break the monopolists' hold on the economy of the colony.
INSTRUCTIONS EN AGRICULTURE
In 1806 the indefatigable George Howe pubUshed his
New South Wales Pocket Almanack and Colonial Remerribrancer, for the Year of Our Lord and Saviour 1806. This
contained, amongst the usual almanac information, instractions for agriculture in the new envu:onment._ In January—
"The farmer should now be dUigent in cleaning his
maize, and breaking up the ground he intends to sow
with wheat and barley. Experience has shown that no
certain crop can be produced if the ground is not ploughed
or broken up two or three months before seed time . . .
Should he neglect (this) till near seed time, the weeds
will overrun it . . . and, should the autumn prove wet,
they may prevent him from sowing the ground he
intended."
In February the farmer should sow his winter or Cape
barley for green feed for stock, which wiU keep in constant
vegetation for three or four months. This is also the best
month to prepare the ground for wheat.
WHEAT SOWING
From the middle of March to the end of April, aU forest
land (i.e., from which forest has been cleared) should be
sown with wheat. As the late maize is not ripe enough to
gather in March, some farmers sow their wheat among the
standing maize; this is very bad husbandry and ruinous to
the farmer, who should let his maize stand until ripe and
then prepare the ground for next season.
The notes for April are important.
"The farmers settled upon the banks of the Hawkesbury and Nepean should consider that from the middle
of April to the end of May is their best season for sowing
wheat. . . . The farmer should guard as much as possible
against every danger to which his crop is exposed while
in the field; and the best precaution is early sowing.
"The farmer should continue to sow wheat aU through
May, but should finish his sowing before June. He should
also commence sowing his spring barley at this season
right through to the end of June, but only in properly
prepared ground. . . .
"October should see the farmer plant his maize in
order that he may finish his planting before his harvest
717
sets in. He should also clean and earth-up his potatoes.
If this work is not done now, he wiU not have time to
attend to it when his wheat is ripe; and by that means
his future crop will be greatiy injured. Maize and potatoes
are such very essential articles of food, as weU as almost
certain crops, that the farmer cannot be too anxious and
diligent in their cuUivation; as, should his other crops
fail, these wiU furnish him with the certain means of
support for his famUy."
The notes for November and December emphasise the
need for getting in and securing the wheat harvest.
The farmer is also warned against sowing the stubble
ground with maize, for this is very bad husbandry:
"A practice that can never answer for any length of
time . . . this custom tends eventually to deceive and
ruin the farmer. . . . He lives above his income, and
contracts debts with a false hope of liquidating them in
harvest; when to his own and his creditors' disappointment
his crop has failed."
The haphazard husbandry of the preceding decade, resulting in the ruin of so many smaUholders, is sought to be
remedied by sound advice to the small farmer. Then the
wheat-planting season, with special address to the farmers
of the Hawkesbury VaUey, is laid down. The importance
of maize and potatoes as staples of life is emphasised and
the agricultural notes end with a homUy on the evUs of
careless over-cultivation.
PROTRACTED DROUGHT
The summer of 1798-1799 was remarkable for one of
the most protracted droughts on record. For ten months
scarcely a shower of rain fell. As early as 25 September
1798, Hunter was expressing real concern to the Duke of
Portiand that
"the very flattering prospect of an ample crop which he
had every reason to expect would have furnished a supply
of wheat for at least twenty months to come, exclusive of
considerable crops of maize, is at present in a very precarious state from an uncommon and tedious drought,
attended with very sultry weather, and there is now a
great probabiUty of wheat being scarce during the ensuing
season."
On 1 May 1799, Hunter is stiU complaining of the drought.
He reports that the maize crop has completely faUed and
that the wheat harvest will be one-third only of what could
have been expected. The whole country has been in a blaze
718
of fire. Pasturage for a time has been destroyed and the
streams of fresh water almost exhausted. It was a time of
general want, one of those recurring periods which characterised the colony's early years, with no clothing or bedding
in store and a general insufficiency of stores, as no sufficient
supplies had been received since the arrival of the Sylph on
17 November 1796.
FLOOD OF MARCH 1799
But by one of those paradoxes for which the AustraUan
climate is notorious, in the midst of drought, the Hawkesbury
area had been devastated by a severe flood early in March
1799. The river rose fifty feet above its common level,
the banks were overflown with vast rapidity, and the torrent
was so powerful that it carried all before it. The Government Store and all it contained were swept away. Settlers'
houses and furniture, livestock and provisions, were alike
carried off and the whole country looked lUce an immense
ocean. One life only was lost, but the inhabitants had been
left in the greatest distress for want of the bare necessities.
However, Hunter consoled himself that the flood
"wiU be the means of that land in the Hawkesbury area
which has been inundated producing, for a year or two
to come, uncommon crops, and thereby the loss at present
occasioned to the people wiU be recovered."
He made available suppUes of seed wheat to the people
who applied for it to prevent the continuance of the scarcity.
The local drought finally broke on 4, 5 and 6 June 1799,
when a heavy south wind brought incessant rain which
deluged the colony; partially erected buUdings in Sydney
and elsewhere were wrecked, but Hunter hoped to replace
them all within twelve months.
"WHOLE CROPS UNDER WATER"
The colony was far from recovered from the twin catastrophes of drought and flood of the previous summer when,
on 20 March 1800, Hunter again had to report
"and now at the time we are about to gather in our
maize, it is likely to be ruined by a simUar cause, for at
this moment of writing, the River Hawkesbury has again
overflown its banks and has had the whole crops under
water — has swept away some of the savings of our last
wheat harvest there, with a considerable number of hogs
and poultry."
He feels sure, however, that these untoward circumstances
719
are such as may not happen again in many years and
therefore they should not create alarm. However, he stresses
that the continual hand-to-mouth existence forced on the
settlers by these disasters has undermined their wiU to work
hard on their farms. He also views with concern the adverse
effect this must have on the preservation of livestock. He
has been blamed for the expense incurred in victualUng the
colonists, but he feels that this has been due to circumstances
beyond his control.
On 30 March 1800, Hunter again wrote to the Duke of
Portland:
"It is much to be lamented that in establishing this
settlement on the Hawkesbury, the people who fixed it
there had not considered the signs of those floods which
had appeared to the first discoverers, and to have erected
their dweUings, etc., on the higher grounds, or that the
inundations which have lately happened had not taken
place at an earUer period when there were but few settlers.
Those overflowings which have lately happened none
formerly had any idea of; they exceed in horror and
destruction all we would have possibly conceived."
However, cf. H.R.N.S.W. II, p. 320, where Grose, on
16 September 1795 had informed the Hon. Henry Dundas
that it was evident the settlers on the Hawkesbury would
never be secure from inundation.
"SUCCESSION OF ILL FORTUNE"
Hunter asserted further:
"The settlement . . . is yet too young to be able to
withstand such a succession of ill-fortune without its
being felt in some degree an inconvenience and an expense
to the Mother country. . . ."
Hunter, that brave and honest, but weak and indecisive
man, was already under recall, as he was to find out when
his replacement, King, arrived in the Speedy on 15 AprU
1800, from England.
In the uneasy period that followed between King's arrival
and Hunter's departure in H.M.S. Buffalo on 28 September
1800, the two men had some, at times sharp, differences
of opinion. On 5 July 1800, for example. King wrote to
Hunter and asserted "it is to the Hawkesbury we are to
look for our supplies."
Hunter, weary and despondent, repUed:
"If you are to look chiefly to the Hawkesbury for
support, it wUl ever be a precarious dependence, as the
last two years have evinced."
720
Kmg was not to be so easily put down. On 6 July he
wrote again to Hunter:
"On what you say respecting the importance of the
Hawkesbury, I agree with you as to its precarious state
on account of the floods; but stiU there is a great quantity
of unthreshed wheat there, which will one way or another
find its way to the public stores, and I do not despair of
purchasing wheat next year at 6s. per bushel."
The price of wheat per bushel during Hunter's regime
appears to have been maintained at ten shillings, despite
his efforts to bring about a reduction.
"AGGRESSIVE APPROACH"
King sought to bring an aggressive approach to bear
on the problems of the colony. In a letter written to Sii
Joseph Banks on 5 June 1802, he said:
"There are two things that set me much at variance
with those about me — first, my determination that the
public shaU not be cheated; and next, that the King's
authority shaU not be insulted
The former systems
of monopoly and extortion I hope are now eradicated. Of
spirits I think the inundation is going off, and industry
begins to know her produce will not be sacrificed to the
infamous wretches that have preyed on the vitals of this
colony."
The Hawkesbury area, at the time of Hunter's departure,
was the residence of 141 men, 82 women and 183 chUdren
victualled from the Store, whUst those who supported themselves comprised 488 men, 63 women and seven chUdren.
In four years the population of this area had increased
from 601 to 964, whUst the number victuaUed by the Store
had decreased from 454 to 406; of more significance is
the fact that the number of adults supported had been
reduced from 384 to 223, a difference of 161.
KING ATTACKS PROBLEMS
At the commencement of his Governorship, King had
brought great energy to bear on the problems of the colony.
A series of Government and General Orders had sought
to remedy the principal abuses. Assigned servants were to
be fed and clothed by their masters; food and clothing
were to be available from the Store at fixed prices; port
orders sought to control the promiscuous boarding of vessels
newly arrived, and a table of legal tender, i.e., the value
of the coinage circulating in the colony, was published.
721
A
A
A
A
A
A
guinea
Half-Johanna
gold mohur
Spanish dollar
Johanna
ducat
£ 1 / 2 / 0 A pagoda
£2/0/0
A runee
£1/17/7 ^ ^ " ^ f
..^
£ 0 / 5 / 0 A Dutch guilder
£ 4 / 0 / 0 An English
shiUing
£0/9/6
£0/8/0
£0/2/6
^Zt,!
£0/2/0
£0/1/8
A copper coin
of 1 oz
£0/0/2
A copper coin
of ^"^^z
£0/0/1
A copper coin
of J oz
£0/0/0i
Copper coinage ceased to be legal tender in payment for
any sum exceeding £5, and the exportation or importation
of copper coinage by private persons for any sum in excess
of £5 was prohibited.
King had hoped to end the lack of prosperity occasioned
by the Hawkesbury floods of 1799 and 1800, but on 10
March 1801, he had to inform the Duke of Portland "of one
of those calamities with which it pleases God sometimes
to afflict mankind, and which no human foresight can
avoid. . . . Fair prospects by some settlers had been defeated by three successive inundations of the Hawkesbury
since last December; the last of which happened the 2nd
and 3rd instant, had swept away half the stacks of wheat
and destroyed nearly the whole of the corn and swine at
the place.
"DEPRIVED OF COMFORT, CLOTHING OR
SHELTER"
"Thrice in four months have they been drove from
their habitations to save their lives in trees and pieces
of floating wood, untU the floods subsided, when they
found themselves deprived of every comfort, clothing,
or shelter; their wheat that was housed, that in their
stacks, and their growing corn totaUy destroyed; and
what is greater public calamity, their stock of swine nearly
all drowned."
King goes on at length to detail the dependence of other
parts of the colony on the Hawkesbury for grain, the need
to victual the distressed settlers (upwards of 500 in number)
in that place who were hitherto self-supporting, and foreshadows the need to import grain.
However, a report by Surveyor Grimes dated 7 March
1801, whUe presenting a black enough picture of loss, does
not appear to convey the sense of total disaster that pervades
King's report. Grimes sets out losses and the probable
quantity of wheat remaining and the proportion that may
be offered to the store:
Bushels of wheat lost
484 acres of wheat, estimated at 20 bushels per acre
1.354 acres of maize lost, estimated at 20 bushels per acre
Hogs lost
Bushels of good wheat remaining
Bushels of good wheat which may be offered the store
Acres of maize remaining
Hogs remaining
.Acres of wheat intended to be sown this season
3,589
9,680
13,269
27,080
•„ 104
19,221
7,500
500
?'5x?
1,405
722
On the subject of animal food, King explains to the
Duke how unequal the resources of the colony are to
supplying sufficient of this for its needs. Out of 5,515
inhabitants, 2,736 (equal to 2,309 fuU rations) support
themselves at no expense to the pubhc, and 2,779 (equal
to 2,348 full rations) are necessarily supported by the
Crown.
As the Public Store then held only twenty-eight weeks'
salt meat at full ration. King had to take steps to import
more cattle, and entered into a contract with Robert
CampbeU for the supply of 150 cattle from Bengal, and
ten tons of sugar to be brought by the ship that brings the
cattle.
King estimated that the 2,348 fuU rations would cost the
Crown, after aUowing for the value of grain raised by the
Government and exclusive of stores clothing and Superintendents' salaries, the sum of £26,706/16/3 in the ensuing
year.
SALT MEAT SITUATION
To help remedy the salt meat situation, King showed his
resourcefulness in initiating a commercial enterprise that
was to be a feature of the colony's economy for upwards
of the next thirty years. In 1793, the Daedalus (Lieutenant
Hanson), under orders from Vancouver, had saUed from
the north-west coast of America for Port Jackson, and en
route had purchased 100 hogs at Tahiti, eighty of which
were landed alive at Sydney on 20 AprU 1793.
On 20 May 1801, King ordered the Porpoise (Lieutenant
Scott) to saU for Tahiti to purchase and salt as much pork
as the ship would hold. Scott was furnished with Cook's
and Vancouver's pork-salting recipes and instructed also
to investigate the prospects of future suppUes from this
source. Bass and his partner Bishop, in October 1801 and
subsequently, became engaged in the Tahitian pork trade.
King was convinced that he was procuring salt pork at a
cheaper rate per pound than it could be brought from
England, but H. E. Maude demonstrates that his accounting
was rather faulty.
King's return of livestock and acreages, in or to be in
cultivation, compared with the figures of twelve months
earlier, is of interest:
Date
Sheep
July 1800
6,124
30 June 1801 7,046
Cattle
1,044
1,242
Horses
203
241
Goats
2,182
1,259
Hogs
4,026
4,766
Wheat
4,065 acs.
5,333 acs.
Maize
2,930 acs.
3,864 acs.
One wonders what had happened to the goats; they must
have suffered a lot of casualties in the floods and the cooking
pot!
723
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE NO SINECURE
Before he had been a year in office. King found, as
Hunter had done before him, that his office was no sinecure.
By 8 November 1801, he was writing to Under Secretary
King in these terms:
"Situated as this Colony was when I took the command,
every step I took clashed so much with the interest of
trading individuals, both commissioned as weU as uncommissioned, that all set their wits to work, not only
to thwart my exertions, but also to use every measure
that art, cunning, and fraud could suggest to impede my
efforts. Mere opposition, my conduct and orders will
plainly evince, I have not only withstood, but I have also
the satisfaction to see that these measures of mine have
generally succeeded in rescuing the inhabitants and the
public purse from the monopolies and extortions that
have been so long practised on both, to the enriching
Capt. McArthur, Mr. Balmain, and the late Acting Commissary, with a few other favoured individuals."
Later in the same letter he refers to "that bon homme
Paterson," who had written to Sir Joseph Banks aUegin^
that King's too great economy had been the cause of the
present scarcity in the colony. King claims that his economical government had saved the Crown a large sum and
instances the efforts made to have him raise the price of
wheat from 8/- a bushel to 15/-, which he had refused
to do, despite the scarcity of this grain. With some bitterness
he says . . .
"Had I preferred ease and quiet, and chosen to continue
Captain Macarthur Arbiter of the Colony, you would
have heard nothing of this. If it appears I have done
no more than my duty, I cannot doubt the most decided
support. I shall close the subject by observing that if
Captain Macarthur returns here in any official character
it should be that of Governor, as one-half the colony
already belongs to him, and it wiU not be long before
he gets the other half."
Macarthur was already under arrest for his duel with
Paterson, and on the eve of being sent back to England
for trial by court-martial. He saUed for Europe via India
in the barque Hunter on 15 November 1801, and King had
the pleasure of his absence untU 9 June 1805.
The Hawkesbury did not flood in 1802 and a more
hopeful tone as to the future of agriculture there pervades
King's despatches. A return of 17 August 1802 shows a
724
general improvement (except for the goats, which seem
to have suffered a further depletion in numbers):
Acres
Acres
Acres
y^cres
Cleared
Wheat
Maize
Barley Horses Cattle Sheep
Goats
Hogs
10,184
4,945
3,135
263
293
1,856
8,661
1,146
5,233
Bushels of grain in hand comprised wheat 13,793 and maize 17,107.
PRESERVATION OF BREEDING STOCK
The preservation of breeding stock had again exercised
the Governor's mind, and Govemment and General Orders
of 16 March 1802, and 31 July the same year, prohibited
disposal by settlers of Government stock lent to them for
breeding purposes; licensed butchers alone would be aUowed
to kill and vend meat to the pubUc, provided that male
stock alone might be slaughtered, and regulated the prices
at which meat might be sold.
To further encourage agriculture and stock-breeding, King,
by Public Notice dated 10 December 1802, laid down stock
premiums for 1803. It appears that in November 1801 or
thereabouts, he had rewarded industrious settlers with gifts
of one or two ewes. In July 1802, he put these stock
premiums on to a proper footing. Gifts of stock were made
for the highest production achieved in the grain crops, for
swine breeding and flax crops and manufacture. The Notice
of December 1802 even called for entries by candidates
for premiums being lodged with the District Magistrates
and fully defined the conditions of the contest.
In 1803 King established a Government Brewery at
Parramatta and also encouraged a private individual, presumably one W. Stabler, to brew beer as a commercial
enterprise. The availability of beer, it was hoped, would
decrease the demand for spirits and would operate for the
general welfare of the colony. Hops were in short supply,
but barley and even wheat were used as substitutes. The
good seasons at the Hawkesbury left grain available for
this use.
SUPPLY OF GRAIN
On 30 December 1803, King issued a Government and
General Order calling for tenders for the supply of grain.
The order contained an observation that wheat and maize
prices would be reduced, having regard to the fact that
there had been no floods for the past two years. Furthermore,
the increased productivity of the Government farms had
lessened the dependence on private grain growers. In the
upshot, the wheat price was fixed at 7 / - per bushel delivered
at the Store at the Hawkesbury, and 7/6 at Sydney and
Parramatta. Care was taken that no person had more than
725
a proportionate part of his crop received into the Store to
the detriment of the smaU producer.
The 1803 wheat crop at the Hawkesbury showed some
sign of being affected by blight and smut, and a Govemment
and General Order of November 1803 urged farmers to
take precautions against these potential dangers.
Livestock and acreages in cultivation again showed satisfactory increases (this time the goats had increased by nearly
509r) in the Returns of August 1803:
Acres
Acres
Acres
Wheat
Maize
Barley Horses Cattle
Sheep
Goats
Hogs
7,110
4,388
524
358
2,450
11,275
1,738
9,105
Bushels of grain in hand comprised wheat 22,041 and maize 56,439.
The large stocks of maize in hand indicate the abundance
of this grain available for animal feed, and it must have
assisted materially in the substantial increase in livestock
numbers.
At the end of 1803, provisions in stock showed the
following quantities in hand:
Salt Beef
Salt Pork
Suet
252,182 lbs.
1,248,620 lbs.
24,093 lbs.
Flour
Sugar
Hops
612,760 lbs.
12,238 lbs.
2,242 lbs.
The stock of salt meat was sufficient to furnish 2,663
fuU rations for 143 weeks. A vastly different position
from that of the desperate days of 1788 to 1801.
By 12 July 1804, the population at the Hawkesbury
totalled 1,687. Because of the poor land communications
(the road to Parramatta left much to be desired), a considerable water traffic had grown up between the Hawkesbury and Sydney for the carriage of produce to the latter
place. As early as February 1803 a Government and General
Order had been necessary to control the malpractices, such
as overloading and wetting of grain to add to its weight,
which had grown up.
Boatbuilding was also a rising industry. Andrew Thompson, up to 28 February 1804, had built three sloops at the
Hawkesbury, whUst John Palmer had had one sloop buiU
three.
INCESSANT RAINS
Early in 1805 there were very heavy and incessant rains.
Although the River Hawkesbury rose slightly, it caused
inconsiderable damage to crops; however, the rain itseU
rotted and destroyed most of the maize crop before it could
be saved. The wheat crop had also suffered from rains
in late 1804, and the ravages of the "fly moth" (probably
Tineae granella). However, despite these misfortunes the
situation was not critical by any means, and the people and
livestock were in thriving condition.
726
The seal and oil fisheries had drawn many men away
from the agricultural labour pool, but this did not appear
to have materially affected the quantitative production of
grain and livestock, which remained at a satisfactory level
up to the end of October, 1805.
The crop and stock figures for 30 July 1804, and 14
August 1805, can be inserted here:
1804
1805
Acres
Wheat
8,245
, 6,777
Acres
Maize
4,066
4,827
.Acres
Barley Horses Cattle
1,080
434
3,264
1,058
517
4,325
Sheep
16,501
20,617
Goats
2,980
3,810
Hogs
14,308
23,000
The wheat acreage is the smallest since 1802, although
still well above the figure for that year; it would appear
that the effects of disease and insect pests were being felt.
On 27 October 1805, the Sydney Gazette reported heavy
rain had fallen for the last week, with consequent flooding
in South Creek and the inundation of 1,000 acres of land
bearing wheat and maize. The Hawkesbury rose nearly to
bank level and a general inundation was feared. The Governor sent the whole of the Government labourers at
Sydney and Parramatta to plant as much maize as possible
at Castle Hill in order to help meet any contingency that
might arise. However, the weather cleared and a week
later it was reported that there had been no damage to
crops apart from those on the banks of South Creek.
On 6 November 1805, the inhabitants of the Hawkesbury
were subjected to another scare. This time, without any
evident cause, the river rose twenty-seven feet in nine hours;
the Creek farms were again inundated, but, fortunately, the
river did not overflow its banks, and the waters once again
receded. As in March 1799, heavy rains in the interior
had swelled the stream in its lower reaches.
RAVAGES OF BLIGHT
Apart from the flood losses on South Creek, concern was
expressed at the state of the crop due to the ravages of
blight, smut and rust. Farmers were urged to make every
effort to preserve their crops and maintain their livestock,
as any diminution would be a serious calamity.
On 9 March 1806, a supplement to the Sydney Gazette
expressed concern at rains, which at first were welcomed
to revive the languishing maize crops, but continued in
such torrents that the South Creek lands were again flooded
and a considerable rise in the Hawkesbury was caused,
which inundated the lower lands and destroyed a great
quantity of maize. However, the waters feU before more
extensive damage could be caused.
727
DISASTER STRIKES
Then, on 22 and 23 March 1806, disaster struck. The
first intimation occurred on Thursday, 20 March, when the
river rose several feet; but by Friday the rise had abated.
The apprehensions of the inhabitants were allayed. However,
"the incessant rains on Friday . . . night gave a new turn
to expectations; and by daylight on Saturday morning a
scene of horror presented itself in every quarter. It was
by this time nearly as high as on the 2nd of March 1801;
many farms were then under water; the rain continued
without intermission, and a rapid rise was in consequence
observable. The measures adopted by Thomas Arndell
Esq., for the preservation of lives, were actively carried
into execution by Mr. Thompson, Chief Constable, who,
in one of his boats, saved the lives of a hundred persons,
whom he took from the tops of houses and rafts of straw
floating on the deluge. He had two more boats employed
in the same humane work, and by means of this also
a number of lives were saved.
"Mr. Thomas Biggers, often at the risque of his own
life, saved upwards of 150 men, women and children;
and others who possessed boats, particularly the District
Constables, were very active in this benevolent duty."
The account goes on to say that in the course of "this
dreadful day," upwards of 200 wheat stacks were swept
into the stream and carried down the river; stock of aU
descriptions were seen floating about. . . . The boats of
Messrs. Thompson, Biggers and others were constantly employed taking the settlers' famUies from the roofs and
ridges of the houses, where many had for whole hours
clung despairing of assistance, expecting to be shortly washed
into the watery waste.
"The distress and horror of that evening can neither
be described nor imagined. The day was heavy and
gloomy, the night fast approaching, torrents of rain pouring
with unabating fury. . . . Muskets were discharged by
the settlers from trees and roofs aU day, and great numbers
had been taken up, and been left in safety on the higher
grounds; but many were devoted to undergo a night of
horror the most inexpressible. . . . On Sunday morning
the rigor of the weather abated. . . . Nearly 300 persons,
saved from the deluge by the humane perseverance and
incredible exertions of their rescuers, were released from
a state of actual famine by a supply sent from the Green
HUls in consequence of His ExceUency's request to Mr.
Arndell to afford the sufferers every assistance and relief."
728
ENORMOUS LOSSES
The loss of food, livestock and buildings was enormous.
An area of 36,000 acres was flooded. In many parts the
water lay from twelve to eighteen feet deep. It was estimated that 23,606 bushels of wheat, 59,450 bushels of maize
and 4,145 bushels of barley, valued in the aggregate at
£22,368 were swept away. Livestock, comprising 3,560
swine, 16 horses, 47 sheep and 296 goats, valued at £7,454,
were drowned. The buUdings destroyed were valued at
£5,425; but no estimate was made of the personal property
which was lost. In aU, seven persons were drowned (five
men and two women).
The grain alone (calculated on the low rate of 50 lbs.
per bushel) would have been sufficient to serve out a ration
of 12 lbs. per week to the whole population for twelve
months. Vessels were sent from Sydney to carry suppUes
up the river, but they were forced to return, finding it
utterly impossible to contend against the strong current
when the tide was ebbing, or the confused sea and masses
of debris when the flood tide met the out-ranning stream.
The Sydney Gazette of 30 March 1806 (which also contained the first full account of the flood) urged the colonists
to increase their means of subsistence by intensive industry
in their vegetable gardens; the Government and General
Order of 28 March 1806 reduced the weekly ration; and
the Governor's letter of 2 AprU 1806 to the Judge-Advocate
and Bench of Magistrates directed that private bakers be
licensed and the sale of bread to private persons be
controlled.
In an endeavour to secure grain for the Govemment
Store, a Government and General Order of 26 March 1806
directed the Commissary to receive storeable wheat from
those who owe Government debts, and who have it to spare,
at fifteen shiUings, barley at eight, and maize at six shillings
a bushel; to those who owe no Government debts, wheat
at twelve, good barley at seven, and maize at six shillings a
bushel.
RICE CARGOES LOST
King, by 7 AprU 1806, when he wrote a despatch to
Earl Camden, had made agreements with the owners of
the vessel Sydney and the captain of the Tellicherry to bring
cargoes of rice from India and China within six months.
Unfortunately, both vessels were lost on their respective
outward voyages. He also expressed the intention of engag-
729
ing a small, fast vessel of CampbeU's to bring 180 tons of
rice from Madras in a quick round trip of four months.
Camden was asked to send from England 100 to 300
bushels of good seed wheat between July and September
so that it would arrive in the colony in time for the sowing
season in March and AprU 1807.
In 1805, King had asked to be reUeved. His request
was granted, and on 6 August 1806, Governor WUliam
Bligh arrived in Sydney; King, however, after handing over
to Bligh, had to wait in the colony whilst H.M.S. Buffalo
was refitting, and did not sail for England until 10 February
1807.
King had to contend with great difficulties during his
term of office; on his arrival the monopolists were virtuaUy
in control of the colony. He did much to curb them, but
in the end his health was ruined by the strains of office.
An able, fearless and upright administrator, he did not
receive the fuU support he deserved from the British Government. He died in England on 3 September 1808, aged
forty-nine years.
BLIGH ASSUMES OFFICE
His successor, Bligh, a man of irascible temperament
and undoubted personal courage, has been one of the most
controversial figures in AustraUan history. The mutiny of
the Bounty and the Rum RebeUion have caused him to be
vilified, but he has also had his champions. As Dale Carnegie
was StUl a century away in the future, Bligh's principal
trouble seems to have been that he had no one to instruct
him in the art of winning friends and influencing people.
When Bligh assumed office, the Colony was stUl in considerable want of grain. Seed grain was scarce and the
vessels that had arrived were short-victuaUed in the hope of
obtaining plentiful suppUes locally, which circumstance was
a further embarrassment to the Colonial Government. He
considered it would be some years before the colonists
could be got back to their previous standards of opulence
and comfort. Due to overheating, grain seed sent out in
the Sinclair had faUed to germinate.
On 20 December 1806, the price of wheat and barley
was confirmed at 15/- and 8/- for Government debts prior
to 13 August 1806, but debts after that date were allowed
to be liquidated at 14/- the bushel of wheat and 7 / - for
barley. Tender prices for wheat at Sydney and Parramatta
were fixed at 14/9 a bushel and 13/9 at the Hawkesbury.
730
On 7 February 1807, Bligh reported to the Right Hon.
W. Windham that
"both wheat and maize wiU be very scanty to provide
seed and food untU next year. . . . There were 5,046
acres of wheat sown, and its produce I calculate to be
53,198 bushels . . . deducting 12,000 bushels for seed,
there remains 41,198 for consumption. There were 3,120
acres of maize planted, which may produce 59,475 bushels
. . . deducting 500 bushels for seed, there remains 58,975
bushels for consumption."
About a week later, the General Wellesley arrived from
India with timely suppUes of rice and wheat. She had
been sent by the contractor in place of the shipwrecked
Sydney.
In the open market, wheat was seUing at 20s. to 24s.
per bushel. The traffic in spirits as a medium of barter
had revived, and Bligh expressed his determination to
endeavour to stamp it out.
On 5 July 1807, a paragraph in the Sydney Gazette dealt
with the grain shortage and its effect on commercial transactions.
"The extraordinary fluctuations that have taken place
in the price of wheat since the flood in March 1806, have
given rise to many litigations which a little sincerity
might have superseded."
The editor of the Sydney Gazette refers to the Govemment
and General Orders of 1 November 1806, and 3 Januarj'
1807, which provided all outstanding notes payable in
copper coin and colonial currency are to be considered as
sterling money and payable or sued for accordingly. Grain
was a species of colonial currency and therefore the Orders
applied to notes expressed in bushels of grain.
SEEDS OF MACARTHUR-BLIGH QUARREL
About the time that the foregoing was written occurred
an event that was to have far-reaching consequences.
Macarthur sued Andrew Thompson, BUgh's bailiff, for
money lent and secured by a promissory note to be paid
in wheat. At the time the note was given, wheat was about
7/6 per bushel, but when it came due, the price of wheat
had increased to 30/- per bushel. The question arose as to
whether payment of the note should be made in the value
of the wheat at the time the note was given or at the time
when it had to be paid. Macarthur contended it should
be the latter, for if wheat had fallen in price he would have
had to accept payment at the lower amount. The case was
731
ultimately brought to an Appeal Court before Bligh, who
decided in favour of Thompson. In the Ught of the General
Orders, Bligh considered Macarthur had no case and would
not even allow him to put forward his arguments. The
date was 11 July 1807, and from this point on an open
quarrel between Bligh and Macarthur commenced. The
Colony divided itself into Bligh and Macarthur factions;
for obvious reasons, the New South Wales Corps was with
the latter. The events had been set in train which led to
Bligh's being deposed by the Corps and its supporters on
26 January 1808. BUgh's subsequent struggle and plotting
to regain command do not concern us in this paper.
In the huUaballoo that foUowed BUgh's deposition, the
records are full of accusations and counter-accusations, but
little as to how the colony was faring under Major Johnson's
administration with Macarthur as his "Colonial Secretary."
However, on 11 April 1808, Johnson, in reporting Bligh's
arrest to Viscount Castlereagh, mentions that Macarthur and
he have been successful in causing 300 persons, who were
formerly victualled from the Store, to maintain themselves,
and many of the most able of these people have been distributed amongst the settlers to assist in the cultivation of
their lands. One cannot help wondering how many of these
found their way to Macarthur properties.
Fresh meat for the soldiers and grain for the prisoners
was issued in lieu of salt meat, and cows were distributed
amongst the steadiest of the settlers in return for grain for
the Store. By these means, Johnston was able to keep the
expenses of Government down, but, of course, it was at the
expense of the Government livestock.
TRANSPORTS BRING SUPPLIES
On 24 July and 28 July 1808 respectively, the transports
Recovery and Sinclair arrived at Sydney with "very great
supplies," but both Bligh and the Commissary, Palmer,
assert that, as Macarthur had control of the Government
Store, little of these supplies came the way of the colonists
generaUy, and the lot of the colonists became "more and
more wretched."
Yet on 4 September 1808, Foveaux, in his first dispatch
to Castlereagh, speaks of the great increase expected in
the hvestock, and of the abundance of grain of every kind
throughout the settlement; in fact, maize, for want of a
market, was being allowed to remain unhoused and rot. To
check this, and cause the maize to be used for hog feed,
he had determined to pay one shilling per pound for swine
732
flesh for the Store. He considered the ensuing abundance
of pork would bring about competition and a reduction in
price. Government cattle at £28 per head had been exchanged for wheat at 10/- per bushel and maize at 6/per bushel by Johnston, and this"iudicious exchange" had
put 12,000 bushels of wheat into the Store. He thus approbated the actions of Johnston and Macarthur.
The crop and stock figures at 24 November 1808 reveal:
A pr AQ v\cres v\cres
Wheat
Maize Barley Horses
6,877
3.389
544
940
Cattle
9,004
Sheep
33,258
Goats
2,975
Hogs
19,368
Except for cattie and sheep, these figures show Uttle
improvement on those for 1805, and in some cases an actual
decrease; so Foveaux's optimism is at least questionable.
COMPLICATED MANOEUVRES
The compUcated manoeuvres that went on between BUgh,
Foveaux and Paterson do not caU for comment here; nor
does the sailing of Johnston and Macarthur for England in
the Admiral Gambler on 28 March 1809, except to remark
that it was probably fortunate for them that they were no
longer in Sydney when Macquarie and the 73rd Regiment
arrived. A court-martial and a criminal court constituted
from the officers of the 73rd would have probably not taken
as lenient a view of proceedings as the New South Wales
Corps had.
However, prior to the arrival of Macquarie at Port
Jackson on 28 December 1809 (he did not set foot ashore
until 31 December), the colony had to endure the hardship
of more disastrous floodings of the Hawkesbury River. On
3 December 1808, Foveaux had fixed the price of wheat
for the Store at 10/- per bushel, but by 23 March 1809,
Paterson complained to Castlereagh of the paucity of wheat
avaUable for the Store at the fixed price and that it cost
him 15/- per bushel to buy privately for consumption by
his own family. The reason for this was that heavy rains
in November and December 1808 had caused smut to injure
the wheat crop, resulting in a poor harvest, whilst rains
had again interfered with the 1809 sowing season; the
prospects from the next harvest were poor, therefore, and
Paterson, on 22 May 1809, informed Castlereagh that he
deemed a considerable importation of grain would be
necessary.
ANOTHER FLOOD DISASTER
It is against this background of gloom that we read the
first hint of disaster in the Sydney Gazette to the effect that
733
on Tuesday, 23 May 1809, the Hawkesbury perceptibly
began to rise and continued to do so untU Thursday, 25
May, when the greatest part of the settlement was inundated,
but the water thereafter fell several feet. Such was the
report received 28 May.
The foUowmg week's Gazette contains a fuU account. On
the afternoon of 25 May, the river commenced to rise at
the rapid rate of four feet per hour untU the water began
to spread over the banks. The magistrates mobUised aU the
boats they could for flood rescue service. About 4 a.m.
on Saturday, 27 May, the water reached its greatest height,
three hours after which it graduaUy fell again. Had the
waters continued to rise for another hour, the flood level
would have equaUed that of 1806. The clearing and resowing of the grounds inundated was put in hand immediately. Losses were reported as 1,769 bushels of wheat,
785 bushels of maize, 212 bushels of barley, 233 acres of
maize, 264 pigs and a few sheep and goats. There was
no loss of life. The losses of grain and stock were not
comparable with those of 1806, but for the reasons already
given they made a threatened scarcity an actuality. Thus
we find Paterson reporting to Castlereagh on 9 July 1809
that he has taken steps to obtain 200 tons of wheat from
Bengal. To encourage Mr. Burton, the merchant who was
to supply the wheat at 8/- per bushel, Paterson gave him
a permit to land 13,000 gaUons of spirits (of which, he
says, there was a great want in the Colony). However, a
fortnight earlier the Sydney Gazette had stated that the
activity of the flood relief gangs had resulted in between
2,000 and 3,000 acres more being put into cultivation than
were actually cultivated before the May flood.
"DREADFUL CALAMITIES"
But nature had yet to visit a further misfortune on the
Colony. A Government and General Order of 5 August
1809, referring to "the late inundations of the Hawkesbury
and George's River, which there is reason to fear has been
more extensively destructive than on any former occasion,"
enjoins all garden owners to raise as great a quantity of
vegetables as possible, to reduce the consumption of bread
and aUeviate the results of "the dreadful calamities" by
which the Colony has twice, in the space of two months,
been visited. A warning is also issued that any inhabitant
of the Colony attempting a monopoly of grain with a view
to escalating prices during the scarcity wUl be severely
dealt with.
734
The Sydney Gazette of 6 August 1809, says that
"heavy rain had fallen continuously from Saturday evening, 29 July, until Monday morning, 31 July. The waters
of the Hawkesbury began to rise between^ 10 and 11
p.m. on Sunday, 30 July, and reached their greatest
height about noon on Tuesday, 1 August, after which
they receded five or six feet. Further "deluges of ram"
that feU in the evening and night of Tuesday caused
the waters to rise again several feet. . . . By noon Thursday they were ten feet below the highest level that they
had reached. At least three men, a woman and two
children appear to have lost their lives. One settler alone,
a Mr. Benn, lost 300 swine, 100 sheep, 1,000 bushels
of wheat threshed or in stack, a stack of barley; he also
lost two chests of tea and a ton of sugar which he had
received only a few days prior from Sydney. Andrew
Thompson and Mr. Biggers again played leading roles
in saving life."
"BACK TO SUBSISTENCE LEVEL"
The rise of waters was determined to be six feet above
the highest level of the 1806 flood. This had been said
to be eighty feet above common level, but modem observations tend to reduce this to fifty feet. However, irrespective
of whether the highest level reached in August 1809 was
eighty-six feet or fifty-six feet, it sufficed to put the colonists
back on what was virtually a subsistence level again. The
Lieutenant-Governor imposed a ban on the export or
shipping of bread, flour, wheat or of any other kind of grain
whatever from the settlement.
In his dispatch to Castlereagh on 14 October 1809,
Paterson advises that the flood of 1 August carried away
more than half the grain saved or resown after the May
floods. The season being too far advanced to admit of the
lands being sown a third time, a most distressing want of
wheat was inevitable, unless prevented by the timely arrival
of supplies contracted for from India and Rio de Janeiro.
He also discourses on the imprudence of depending on
settlements lying on the banks of rivers as the principal
source of supplies of grain; in the light of experience gained
he had given every possible encouragement to the cultivation
of forest lands.
Some days after the flood of 1 August had abated,
further heavy rains served to cleanse from a good deal of
the cultivated land the silt deposited there by the flood, and
thus gave the growing wheat thereby uncovered a chance
735
to grow to maturity. However, the quantity of wheat thus
fortuitously saved was insufficient to affect the general
position, and there was a considerable rise of basic
foodstuffs
The abatement in the wheat and potato prices at the
end of 1809 can be attributed to the harvests bemg brought
in and affording temporary relief. Maize remained expensive
as the harvest was not due until March 1810. A rise in
the price of meat indicated a reluctance on the part of
growers to part with their breeding stock after the losses
of what would have been surplus stock in the floods.
SCARCITY OF WHEAT
That the scarcity of wheat was only temporarUy abated
by the 1809 harvest is evidenced by Macquarie's first dispatch to Castlereagh on 8 March 1810. He says he found
the public stores almost empty of dry provisions. . . . To
bring some measure of relief, he ordered 300 acres of Government ground to be prepared for a crop of early potatoes
and wheat, and intended to put the troops and aU other
persons victuaUed by the Crown on to a reduced ration.
However, the arrival of the ship Marian and the brig
Experiment within a few days of each other, with contract
wheat from Bengal, relieved him from the necessity ot
resorting to the "very unpleasant expedient" of reducing
the ration.
As far back as 30 January 1802, Lord Hobart had
recommended to King that he should move the Hawkesbury
settlers' habitations on to higher ground, but this advice was
not acted upon. Paterson had stated he was endeavouring
to encourage settlers to cultivate the forest lands, but he
wanted them to vacate the rich alluvial flats altogether.
He was, however, too ineffectual a person to bring this about.
MASTERLY MEASURE OF COMPROMISE
It remained for Macquarie, with his firmness and resolution, to bring into effect a masterly measure of compromise
by which the settlers and their livestock and harvested crops
could be brought safely above flood level, but they could
continue to cultivate the river flats. His Five Towns (the
Macquarie Towns) achieved this result; he realised the
river flats were too valuable to abandon entirely. By bringing
habitations out of the danger areas, the dangers to human
life, livestock and harvested crops would be obviated and
the disorganisation resulting from the floods of earlier years
736
would be substantially reduced. That his scheme was of
substantial merit is amply Ulustrated by the fact that,
ahhough the character of the crops grown has changed, it
is StiU basically operative 160 years later.
The Colony still had far to go before it achieved economic
seLE-sufficiency; but with the advent of Macquarie, the successful crossing of the Blue Mountains barrier in 1813 and
territorial expansion in other directions from Sydney and
its immediate hinterland, the problems that had beset the
Colony for the first twenty-one years of its existence began
to be resolved. The monopoly was broken and the demon
rum, although stUl a problem, ceased to exert its earUer
malign influence over the Uves of settlers and convicts aUke.
It was perhaps Macquarie's (and the settlement's) good
fortune that Macarthur was compulsorily kept from the
scene until 1817. When the latter did arrive back in New
South Wales it was by then too late to put the clock back,
although he retained a considerable nuisance value untU
his death in 1834.
The Hawkesbury, in its own way, had made the economic
cUmate as unstable as did the worst efforts of the monopolists, and the instability of the political sphere served to
enhance the economic fluctuations. Strong poUtical leadership, such as that Macquarie had to give, did much to
stabilise the economy of the Colony, whUst to the extent
that man is able, he also in some measure tamed the
Hawkesbury by reducing the extent to which it could wreak
devastation on the settlers, their homes, their livestock and
their harvested crops.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(1) Australian Dictionary of Biography (1788-1850), vols. 1 and 2.
(2) Collins, David. An Account of the English Colony in New South Wales.
London, 1798.
(3) Evatt, H. V. Rum Rebellion.
A. & R. 1943.
(4) Gill, J. C. H. The Macquarie Towns.
Journal Royal Historical Society ot
Queensland, Vol. VII, N o . 3.
(5) Hardacre, H. F. The Dawn of Settlement in Australia.
Brisbane, N . D .
(6) Historical Records of New South Wales. CI Vols.).
(7) Howe, George. New South Wales Pocket Almanack and Colonial
Remembrancer, 1806. Sydney, 1806.
(8) Hunter, Capt. John. An Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson
and Norfolk Island, etc. London, 1793.
(9) Johnson, Rev. R. B. A. Some Letters of Rev. Richard Johnson, B.A. (Ed.
G. Mackaness) Sydney, 1954.
(10) Lang, J. D . A Historical and Statistical Account of New South Wales. London
1834.
(11) Maude, H. E. Of Islands and Men. O.U.P., 1968.
(12) Steven, M. Merchant Campbell.
O.U.P., 1965.
(13) Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser — 5/3/1803 to 31/12/1809.
(14) Tench, Capt. W. A Complete Account of the Settlement at Port Jackson in
New South Wales. London, 1793.
(Because of its length, it has been necessary to condense M r . Gill's p a p e r
considerably. T h e typescript omitted includes several pages of references. These
can be consulted in a copy of M r . Gill's paper, which is in the possession of
the Oxley Memorial L i b r a r y . — E D I T O R . )